The power line was "glued" to the new footpath with shared nodes. It's not a serious problem and I've now unglued them (not sure how to do that with the iD editor).

If the new footpath is a Public Right of Way (PRoW), you may find this useful:
osm.wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging

Many thanks. In areas which do have London postcodes, I sometimes see what should really be in addr:suburb, or the name of the London Borough Council as values for addr:city

Unfortunately, it's not very correct, since the post town associated with the DA15 postcode district is Sidcup, not London. London is not part of the (postal) address of these buildings. Please revert.

The current use of addr:* tags in the UK is documented in the wiki here
osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom

Unfortunately, it's not very correct, since the post town associated with the DA15 postcode district is Sidcup, not London. London is not part of the (postal) address of these buildings. Please revert.

The current use of addr:* tags in the UK is documented in the wiki here
osm.wiki/Addresses_in_the_United_Kingdom

Thanks for your detailed response.

From what you have said, I think the correct tagging on The Drive would be ownership=private + access=yes

Pine Trees Drive should be OK as highway=residential without any ownership or access tags.

Dukes Ride and Georgian Close, if owned privately, would probably be ownership=private + access=destination

For personal use only, you can find out whether a road is publicly or private maintained from findmystreet.co.uk, but the licence for this is incompatible with OSM.

Updates to OSM can take a couple of weeks to propagate to Komoot, but I've noticed some quicker updates recently (it's my preferred site for planning running routes).

It might be worth opening a discussion on this in the OSM community forums, as other mappers more experienced than me may have other suggestions.

In the event of a dispute,the Data Working Group (DWG) can arbitrate as a last resort.
osm.wiki/Disputes

I hope that's helpful to you. Good luck and happy cycling.

Thanks for replying so quickly. Not a problem, I've undeleted it in changeset/146663361

Which "warning" caused you to delete a tree near Lincoln's Inn Fields in London?

Documentation on the access and ownership keys:
access=*
ownership=*

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating the map.

Are these roads privately owned, but with access for deliveries and visitors and no thoroughfare? If this is the case, the tags you might want are:

access=destination
ownership=private

The iD editor presents access tags for other transport modes as if they were necessary, but you can and should leave them unset if the general access value already describes the situation,

There's limited street side imagery for The Drive and none for Pine Trees Drive, but the Bing Street Side imagery shows a non-standard weight limit sign at the junction with Swakeleys Road, which isn't legal on a public highway.

Reverted in changeset/146608359 in order to restore the data before geofabrik.de extracts are generated.

#DWG

Please could you supply a more coherent explanation for this reversion than "erróneo"?

There are no comments on the original changeset and nothing to suggest in any way that the original mapper's sources were not as described.

¿Podría darnos una explicación más coherente para esta reversión que "erróneo"?

No hay comentarios sobre el conjunto de cambios original y nada que sugiera de ninguna manera que las fuentes del mapeador original no fueran como se describen.

(traducción a través de Google, disculpas por cualquier error)

You appear to have tagged a section of Beechen Grove and Exchange Road as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I'm trying to find any evidence in Bing Streetside imagery that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists. Is this a new signed restriction created by a traffic order more recent than the Bing streetside imagery?

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
foot=*

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.

I wonder how many of these were introduced as a result of iD's policy of presenting inexperienced users with a list of access tags irrelevant to the highway=* type?

Is this a new physically separated cycle track, created after June 2020?

From the Bing aerial and street side imagery available, this appears to be a mandatory cycle lane (with solid white line) and is already mapped with the cycleway:left=lane tag on the road.

Does this image represent the current situation?
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1066735230519834

Thanks - I meant to have a look at that last year when I came across it in Capital Ring-related edits.

No problem, I've restored it to its original position. I believe it's quite easy to accidentally drag a node in the iD editor.

You appear to have dragged the POI for ZERO (node/9700839520) from a building on Friary Street to the centre of Mill Lane. What were you trying to do here?

Google Maps must not be used as a source as the copyright and terms are incompatible with OSM.

osm.wiki/Google

After searching in The Gazette (published under the OSM-compatible Open Government Licence), the only relevant restriction is from traffic orders made by London Borough of Lambeth in August 2023 ( https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4424576 ). The relevant provisions are:

(2) Ban motor vehicles with exemptions for pedal cycles, emergency vehicles, and vehicles with a valid dispensation via the use of CCTV enforcement:

(f) The Lyham Road / Dumbarton Road / Chale Road junction, from the north-eastern corner to the south-western corner, requiring compulsory left turns from Chale Road into Lyham Road and Dumbarton Road into Lyham Road, and compulsory right turns from Lyham Road into Dumbarton Road and Lyham Road into Chale Road;

This LTN/modal filter restriction was already mapped in August 2023 ( changeset/140983494 ). As there appears to be no evidence from an OSM-compatible source that motor vehicles are prohibited on Chale Road between Kingswood Road and Lyham Road, I have reversed your edit in changeset/146369900

Unfortunately, the "pin" which you have moved was the surveyed address for an individual house which had not yet been split.

I am not sure why delivery companies should deliver to locations tagged with addr:street=Elsham Road from Holland Road.

The houses on the NE side of Elsham Road have now been split and the address data merged in changeset/146366095

Broomwood close already had access=private (added by you in June), which applies to all travel modes. Adding bicycle=no does no harm, but it also has no real effect. What was the problem you were trying to solve here?

access=*